Gavin Newsom: Gay marriage and high-speed rail

In the NY Times profile of Gavin Newsom, the reporter dutifully checks the box on gay marriage:

Mr. Newsom won widespread attention as mayor of San Francisco — where, among other things, he championed same-sex marriage at a time when it was a contentious issue even in his own party.

Apparently the Times thought it was not fit to print anything about the context of then-Mayor Newsom's poorly-timed initiative on gay marriage, made in February, 2004, a presidential election year, which surely helped George W. Bush win a second term that November.

The NY Times supports high-speed rail everywhere, so it's not surprising that they don't press our next governor on the issue. This is not about Newsom's past flip-flops on the subject but about what he will do about the project as governor:

And Mr. Newsom so far has offered often vague responses on some of the biggest issues he would face: global warming, the over-budget high-speed rail train between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the state’s volatile tax code...

"Over budget"? The dumb project has never had anything like a plausible budget or a sensible idea of where the state would get the money to build it.

In the Planning Report interview, Newsom offers this:

When it started, I was a huge supporter of it. The northern terminus was going to be in my town—the Grand Central Station of the West Coast, the Transbay Terminal. It was going to be 2 hours and 46 minutes to Downtown LA from Downtown San Francisco. It was going to generate $1 billion in surplus with 55 million passengers. A third of the money was going to come from the private sector, a third from the feds, and we’d put up our third—the $9.95 billion bond approved by voters in 2008.

From the project's 2009 business plan:

State funding: $9 billion from Proposition 1A 

Federal funding: $17‐19 billion 

Local funding: $4‐5 billion 

Private funding: $10‐12 billion 

Total: $45 billion

The official cost is now $77 billion, and even that is wildly optimistic. Keep in mind that the above money is what the HSR Authority supposedly needed just to build the system, not to operate and maintain it if/when it's ever built. 

Any taxpayer subsidy to operate/maintain the system is prohibited by 2008's Proposition 1A. The state's voters were promised that the system would be supported by its users, not subsidized by the state's taxpayers to operate and maintain after it's built.

The notion that the federal government was ever going to give California $17-19 billion to build the project is ridiculous. And $4-5 billion from local governments in the state? Ha! 

What about "private funding"? The reality: private investors insist on making money from their investments, which would mean profit guarantees from the State of California---that would be a cost---before they invested in the project.

More from Newsom in the Planning Report:

We got the federal money only because three other governors decided to get out of the high-speed rail business: Rick Scott, John Kasich, and Scott Walker. Joe Biden, who was very enthusiastic about high-speed rail, redirected their stimulus money to California. The $3.5 billion those governors gave away is all the federal money we’ve got, and I imagine that’s all we’re going to see for a long time.

Those governors understood that the federal grants to help their states build high-speed rail systems would still leave the states to pay for construction cost overruns and to operate and maintain the systems after they were built, which could easily amount to billions of dollars.

Newsom provides this ominous final comment on the stupid project:

But at the same time, I love the vision, and I’m committed to it. I think the only way we can achieve this vision is to get Phase I done and then to enlighten the private sector about the opportunity to help finance subsequent segments. Then we have to imagine a day when we have a more enlightened legislative leadership in Congress and the White House that might support that vision.

Apparently we're going to have a governor who doesn't know the difference between a vision and a hallucination. There has never been anything "enlightened" about this project. It was dumb from the start, pushed by special interests, like the labor unions, and lies about the cost, ridership, and fares.

See also The high-speed rail project: The shame of the Democratic Party.

Ninth Circuit court rules for Pamela Geller

Top: US government ad, on the bottom, Geller's ad

Pamela Geller:

This all started back in 2013, when the FBI was running a terrorism awareness campaign featuring bus ads depicting photos of sixteen of the world’s Most Wanted Terrorists.

This was a publicity campaign sponsored by the Joint Terrorism Task Force for the State Department’s Rewards for Justice (RFJ) program.

The ad featured the world’s leading global terrorists. As it happened, all but one were Muslim. Islamic supremacists and their leftist lapdogs demanded that the ad come down, claiming it was insulting to Muslims. The FBI caved and pulled the Seattle-area bus ads featuring the “Faces of Global Terrorism” after receiving complaints “that the ads stereotype Muslims.”

My organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), believed that this public awareness message was critical to national security and should run. We are constantly being clubbed with the claim that “moderate Muslims” abhor and reject the acts of terrorism that are constantly committed in the name of their religion, so why would they object to a wanted poster featuring Islamic terrorists who supposedly have twisted and hijacked their peaceful religion? Why would “moderate Muslims” provide cover for jihad terror? Why, indeed.

AFDI submitted a virtual copy of the FBI ad to run on Seattle transit. The cowards at Seattle King Metro refused to run the ad, claiming that it was disparaging to Muslims. Reality is disparaging to Muslims?...

From a statement by Geller's legal team:

Today[Sept. 27], a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that King County’s rejection of a “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad submitted by Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and their organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), violated the First Amendment.

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the County’s rejection of the ad based on its disparagement standard was viewpoint discrimination and that its rejection of the ad based on its disruption standard was unreasonable, all in violation of the First Amendment.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of Geller, Spencer, and AFDI.

The ad at issue was modeled after an advertisement submitted by the federal government and accepted for display by the County in 2013. The State Department ad depicted the “Faces of Global Terrorism” in an effort to “stop a terrorist” and “save lives.” The advertisement offered an “up to $25 million reward” for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.

The terrorists identified in the ad were also found on the FBI’s most wanted global terrorists list, which is posted on the FBI’s website. At the time, this list included pictures and “wanted posters” for thirty-two terrorists. Of the thirty-two listed terrorists, thirty were individuals with Muslim names or were wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.

According to news reports, the federal government terminated its “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad campaign after receiving complaints from politicians and advocacy groups that took offense that the list of wanted global terrorists pictured in the ad appeared to include only Muslim terrorists.

Shortly after the government pulled the ad, Geller and Spencer, on behalf of AFDI, submitted an ad to the County that included the same pictures, names, and message as the government’s earlier display. The County transit authority refused to run the ad in part because it claimed the ad was not wholly accurate about which government agency ran the rewards program and the amount of the awards, prompting AFLC to file this lawsuit.

After the courts agreed with the County, AFDI submitted a revised ad, this time making certain the ad was presented in such a way that removed the inaccuracy argument. The County still refused to run the ad on the grounds that it was disparaging to Muslims and that it would be disruptive to the transit authority.

The trial court once again ruled in favor of the County. AFLC appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that “[b]ecause neither of the [County’s] reasons for rejecting Plaintiffs’ revised ad withstands First Amendment scrutiny, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for Plaintiffs on this claim”...

Rob's comment:

San Francisco's city government has also been dumb and unprincipled on this issue. I've blogged 40 times on the city's goofy approach to similar ads on Muni buses. 

Click on "Muni Jihad Ads" below for a sample.

For a summary of the issue in San Francisco, see City Hall's pseudo-tolerance and violent jihad.